Title: Learning the Scholarship of Teaching in Doctorate-Granting Institutions
Abstract: The emergence over last decade of national ferment in undergraduate has given voice in higher education to view expressed by late Ernest Boyer that is more than a routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can (Boyer, 1990, p. 23). Teaching, he wrote, must be viewed, like research, as scholarship, and like research, is consequential only as it is understood by others (p. 23). The dialogue surrounding undergraduate has not remained entirely learned in tone, however, and has been approached in confrontational terms as well as in scholarly context of collegial discourse. Representative of disparaging view is Martin Anderson, former policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Anderson joined crowded field' of popular authors with his 1992 assault on integrity of undergraduate teaching, Impostors in Temple: American Intellectuals Are Destroying Our Universities and Cheating Our Students of Their Future. Although many applaud Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered with its optimistic references to undergraduate as an activity that both educates and entices future scholars, (p. 23) Anderson found in Boyer's report for Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching the secret shame of most universities and colleges in America: studied neglect of of students' (Anderson, 1992, p. 45). Neglect may seem to be an unjustified conclusion given Boyer's recount that by ratio of more than two-to-one, faculty responding to national Carnegie Foundation survey said that their interests lie primarily in rather than research (Boyer, p. 44). The Carnegie finding is tempered, however, when data are broken down by institutional types: research, doctoral granting, comprehensive, liberal arts, and two-year.3 The two-to-one ratio is reversed at research universities where 66 percent of faculty point to research rather than as their primary interest (p. 44). Nearly half surveyed faculty at doctorate-granting institutions found less important than research (p. 44). Furthermore, Boyer reported, 1990 survey of chief academic officers reinforced point that shift toward research has, in fact, been increasing at expense of (p. 29). The survey by Richard Miller weighed balance of importance between and research as leaning toward research and away from at 26 percent of institutions responding and moving toward at only 5 percent of schools responding (Miller, 1990, p. 19). Breaking down data further to isolate responses from granting and research universities, findings illuminate downward gradient along which these institutions are drifting away from teaching. No granting institutions reported toward and away from research. In fact, 56 percent of institutions identified in Carnegie Classification system as granting universities reported movement towards research and away from (p. 19). The finding that comes in distant second to research at research and granting institutions is significant when placed into framework suggested by president emeritus of Stanford University.' In his keynote address at November 1995 workshops of American Association for Higher Education, and in his follow-up in Change magazine, Donald Kennedy (1996) identified serious contradiction between education of doctoral students at research and granting institutions, and what is known about their career plans. By 1920s, it had become plain that intent and usage had grown irrevocably apart: trained people only to do research, but was required of those who wished only to teach, he said (p. 10). Kennedy did not suggest that teaching doctorate be offered separately from research doctorate. …